Marketing

“Dropout Factories”

Eduflack High School, higher ed, Marketing, NAEP, NCLB, STEM

From most media coverage over the past few years, we like to think of our high schools as incubators for success.  We throw around terms like rigor and relevance.  We opine that every child should go onto to college.  We push efforts to add additional AP or IB or dual enrollment programs to our schools.  And then, researchers such as those at Johns Hopkins throw a big wake-up call at our feet, reminding us of how far we still need to go.

If you missed it, Nancy Zuckerbrod at AP has the story.  http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/10/30/1_in_10_schools_are_dropout_factories?mode=PF  The summary: one in 10 high schools in the United States post a graduation rate of 60 percent or less.  That’s 17 percent of all of the high schools in the United States.

For years, these school districts have underestimated the problem.  The folks at Manhattan Institute would tell us an urban school district’s graduation rate was 55 percent.  The district would self-report 87 percent.  And we’d believe the latter.  We all want to believe statistics, and given the choice want to believe those that make us feel better about ourselves.  And there is no feel-good message in half of our students failing to earn a high school diploma.

We’d like to believe this is a problem in our urban areas.  But it isn’t limited to those communities.  These factories are just as likely in rural communities.  Why?  It’s purely economics.  We’re far more likely to find these schools in poor communities.  Dropout factories may be colorblind, but they know per-capita income.  According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, Florida and South Carolina have the greatest percentage of these schools.

Those communities providing refuge to such schools have been all abuzz about their dropout factories over the past few days.  We’re quick to defend, to refute, and to deny.  Such response is natural in crisis communications, and losing nearly half your students before graduation is indeed a crisis.  But if there were ever a time calling out for vision and for strategy, it has to be now.

In her piece, Zuckerbrod points to a number of legislative proposals to help fix the problem.  A common graduation rate formula is essential, as is stronger data collection and effective disaggregation of that data.  Then what?

We need to ask WHY these students are dropping out.  Despite popular opinion, few students leave high school because it is too hard.  To the contrary, many will leave because it is too boring or irrelevant.  

Are they leaving to go to work?  If so, what “good” job is out there for a 16-year-old high school dropout?  Some say they are dropping out because of NCLB or testing.  But I’d opine that most high school students don’t even know what NCLB is.

If we can gather data on why students leave school, we can craft the messages to get them to stay in school.  Even without the data, we know that the message must be personalized, must be relevant, and must just be common sense.  What does Eduflack mean?

* We need to start early.  Focusing on high schools and careers in ninth or 10th grade is just too late.  We need to get our kids on the right paths in middle school, get them thinking about the future, and show them the opportunities that really exist.  Middle school is the time to dream … and to plan.
* We need to better link high school to career.  Why take Algebra II?  If you want to design video games or work in a hospital, you need it.  High school courses are relevant.
* We need to take an interest.  In talking with today’s high school students about dropping out, most are staying in school because their teachers know them and take an interest in their lives.  We get rid of the factory mentality when we treat students as individuals.
* Every child has opportunity.  Education is the great equalizer.  With it, any student — regardless of socioeconomic level — can succeed.  But they need that high school diploma (and likely college degree) to do so.
* We cannot accept mediocrity.  We should be appalled by with the dropout rates reported by Manhattan Institute and others.  We simply cannot afford to lose a third of our students before the end of high school (and then another sizable group between high school and college completion).

I know, I know, I’m up on my high horse again.  But sometimes, we just have to ride that stag.  Dropout factories are simply unacceptable.  Dropping out of high school is never a viable choice.  If we want to build a new, strong economy based on high skill jobs, these are just the sort of factories that need a visit from the wrecking ball.  We need schools that prepare us for the rigors, challenges and opportunities of the future, not those that keep us from participating in that future.
  

College for Everyone?

Eduflack early college, higher ed, Marketing, Presidential campaign

As we move closer to the early 2008 primaries, the presidential candidates (particularly the Democratic ones) are starting to discuss their ideas on public education.  We still have a long way to go before we truly know what the candidates will do to improve public education and boost student achievement (funding preK is a start, railing against NCLB not so much).  But education is finally a second-tier issue in discussions, debates, and policy joustings.

And John Edwards is part of the chorus.  As of late, Edwards has started floating the idea of “College for Everyone,” his plan to provide every American with one year of free college (tuition, fees, and books), in exchange for having taken a college prep curriculum in high school, holding a part-time job in college, and generally staying out of trouble in life.

It’s a wonderful start, but, to Eduflack, the message falls grossly short.  Virtually everyone agrees that postsecondary education today is necessary for success tomorrow.  It provides the skills needed for a good job.  It provides choices.  It provides opportunity.  Be it a career certificate, two-year college degree, or four-year degree, postsecondary ed is a necessary component to contribute to the 21st century economy.

Edwards knows that.  The self-made millionaire owes his a good chunk of his success to his postsecondary education.  And as he tours the country talking about Two Americas, he has to know that education is the great equalizer between the haves and the have nots.  We reduce the gap between the two Americas through education and through the notion that success can be attained by all.

Knowing that, why does Edwards limit College for Everyone to just one year?  Are the doors of opportunity opened after taking a few 101 courses?  Of course not.  The path to success is accessed, in large part, through a degree.  That diploma is a measurement of achievement.  Employers aren’t looking for workers who have taken one year of intro courses.  They want workers with college degrees. 

When one looks at the number of organizations advocating for postsecondary education for all, one of the key messages is degree attainment.  We have built a national dialogue that students must graduate from high school, and that dropping out is not an option.  Postsecondary education is no different.  Students must use their high school years to get college ready.  And once the get to college, they need to earn their degree.  The ole sheepskin is still the common measurement of academic success.

In proposing an ambitious plan to get kids to college, Edwards is simply playing the role of tease.  The incentive should be a degree, not just a chance to hang out at the cool kids table for two semesters.  Ultimately, Edwards’ goal should be to boost the number of first-generation students graduating from high school and earning a college degree.  That’s the true road to equality and opportunity.  Anything short, an we are dangling success in front of many, only to pull it back when they reach for it. 

If we truly want to open the doors of postsecondary education to all students, we should be looking at adopting models that boost access and attainment, efforts like the Georgia Hope Scholarships.  Readiness.  Attainment.  Application.  That’s how we move students from high school through postsecondary and into career.  The goal should be a college degree for all, not a course or two of college for most.

Without such a commitment, Edwards’ College for Everyone plan may only do one thing.  That part-time job requirement may be the “path” that many students follow after they drop out of college after that first-year taste.  It’ll be one of a handful of part-time jobs they hold to help pay the rent.   

Advocacy from the Urban Superintendent

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB, PR

The common thinking is that the urban superintendent is the last line of defense for the status quo.  AASA has stood hard and long against the reforms in NCLB.  Urban superintendents, it seems, are leading the charge against classroom measurement and AYP and other such improvements to education delivery and measurement.

We forget, though, that the educational leaders in our urban centers are also the early adopters of reforms like Teach for America and KIPP and New Leaders for New Schools.  And we ignore that these superintendents are the ones with the highest stakes, and the ones most willing to try new reforms if they can deliver maximum impact.

And then we get slapped upside the head with a call for national standards.

For those who missed it, Eduflack is referring to an analysis in today’s Washington Post, written by Jay Matthews.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001503.html  Based on interviews and public statements of Washington, DC-areas superintendents, Matthews paints a clear picture of a cadre of superintendents focused on reforms, improvements, and the bottom line.

It’s no secret that these leaders have voiced a real frustration with NCLB and many of its requirements.  And these frustrations have been translated — by many, including Eduflack — as opposition to the law.  But a closer look of the rhetoric paints a very different picture.

Just look at Fairfax County (VA) Superintendent Jack Dale.  Past statements maligning NCLB testing requirements have been interpreted as opposition to testing itself.  Yes, Dale has real issues with a series of state tests that don’t relate or integrate with one another, yet are governed by a single federal enforcement filter.  His solution — let the feds develop the tests, and empower the states (and LEAs, I suppose) to enact the specific interventions necessary to turn our low-performing schools around and offer virtually every kid the keys to success.

And Dale isn’t alone.  He seems to be joined in the call for national standards by the supes from Montgomery County, MD; Arlington County, VA; and others.

There’s no question that the voice of the superintendent has been almost non-existent when it comes to NCLB 2.0.  Again, we assume a defense for the status quo and opposition to reforms or attempts to build a better mousetrap.  We may assume, but we also need to verify. 

Failed reforms are littered with the remains of assumptions and generalizations.  If we’re looking to improve our struggling schools, we need to include the very superintendents who manage those schools.  They know the problems.  They know the reforms that have been tried and failed (or succeeded).  And they know that, just sometimes, we need a little bold thinking that no one is expecting. 

Now if only Dale and company can rally their fellow superintendents (and the organization that is supposed to represent their interests) to stand behind national standards, we may just have a reform that could make a lasting difference in every LEA and SEA across the nation.


Turning the Corner on NCLB?

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, Spellings

For months now, one of the greatest parlor games in DC education policy sectors has been when No Child Left Behind will be reauthorized.  Depending on who you listen to, it’ll happen next month, this fall, or maybe 2009.  We’ve seen a number of “alternative” bills proposed, and we’ve heard the calls for outright elimination of NCLB.

A few weeks ago, we heard from Congressman George Miller on his views of NCLB.  Again, nothing earth-shattering there, other than the good congressman floated the trial balloon of multiple assessments in evaluating student achievement.  The rhetoric seemed to stick, if this week’s proposal is any indication.

I’ll leave it to the policy wonks to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Miller-McKeon “draft” for NCLB reauthorization.  From the cheap seats, Eduflack is glad to see key components of NCLB remain intact, is a little disappointed in the proposed perceived weakening of accountability provisions, and concerned about the future of full funding for Reading First.

No, what is really of interest is HOW Miller and McKeon are working this reauthorization, and what it says about the future of NCLB 2.0.

First, they are offering a bipartisan solution.  At a time when rhetoric and vitriol is at its best (or worst) on Capitol Hill, we’ve got a powerful Democrat and an equally powerful Republican joining together to offer a meaningful solution to a politically charged problem.  Just as NCLB was positioned six years ago, this is not a blue or red issue.  Providing all students with a high-quality education, an effective teacher, and opportunity is an American issue.  We entered the NCLB in bipartisan fashion, and we now enter 2.0 the same way.

Second, the two demonstrate they understand the challenges stakeholders, bomb throwers, and status quoers pose to meaningful legislation.  They opened the tent, leaving no voice out at this point in the process.  This week’s announcement is intended as the start of the dialogue, purposely released so all concerned can comment, criticize, and offer improvements.  Miller and McKeon may know well, but they admit that the views of others are equally important in improving the law.  They opened the lines of communication, versus cutting them off from the start.

Finally, they issued no ultimatums.  There is no line in the sand.  Just the commitment that we are continuing the law, and we are seeking to improve the law.  Opponents can’t shoot down this draft … yet.  And if one seeks to wait to criticize after the reauthorization bill is dropped, they are guilty of refusing to participate in the process.   You gotta play the game in the early innings if you expect to win it in the ninth.

Yes, there are still many miles to go on NCLB reauthorization.  And this draft still needs a lot of work before it is a true improvement in the law.  But if this week is any indication, Miller and McKeon understand how to marketing and promote their vision and their intentions.  A bipartisan approach, an approach that invites input and offers the time and space for continued improvement, is just what the current situation calls for.  These two congressional leaders have reduced the temperature a little on NCLB, and provided a tad bit of hope in what was once seen as a hopeless situation.

A Sign of the Times

Eduflack Marketing, PR, Students

We spend a lot of time focused on the meaning (or lack thereof) of specific words when it comes to talking about education reform.  What’s the intent?  What’s the goal?  What’s the measurement?

But sometimes, a item hits Eduflack like a sledgehammer, and just doesn’t need such exploration.  Case in point — “My Child’s Pack.” (http://www.mychildspack.com/)  Special thanks to Alexandra Bruell at PRWeek for throwing the spotlight on this latest back to school product.

What is it?  There is now a line of ballistic backpacks for middle and high school students designed to “provide on the spot protection against guns and knife violence!”

MJ Safety Solutions clearly knows the problem, the solution, and are not shy to talk about it in the bluntest of terms.  Do we even have to ask what message this sends?  Or what parental concern it is addressing?  Of course not.  There’s no misunderstanding the message here.

I loved back-to-school time because it meant a new Trapper Keeper.  Oh how times have changed.

Those Lazy, Hazy Days

Eduflack ACT, Marketing, NCLB, PR

In media relations, you learn quickly that if you are looking to dump a story (meaning you need to distribute it, but either don’t want it prominently covered or don’t want too many folks reading it), you either drop it on a Friday afternoon or distribute it on the week between Christmas and New Years.  Little fuss, little muss, and little will be remembered in the coming days.

In the education world, though, it seems that August is often where good stories go to die.  I’ll admit, now is the time when Eduflack’s top concern is whether the Mets can hold off Philly and Atlanta to win the NL East.  Then when you factor in the Edufamily, education reform comes in a strong third (still better than education’s priority in recent voter polling data, which puts it no higher than fifth).

Looking at this week’s Education Week and www.edweek.org, we see a number of interesting stories.  But as it is mid-August, what impact will they have on those down at the shore or those already preparing for the start of the school year?  Earlier this summer, we asked where all of the good stories had gone?  Now we ask, if those good stories come, but come in mid-August, do ed reformers notice them?

Here’s just a sampling of attention-worthy stories:
* NSBA’s survey on social networking and students
* Annual ACT score release
* Current efforts to turn around the Recovery District in New Orleans
* The future impact of NBPTS, and the impact and quality of future NBCTs

The timing of public announcements is a tricky thing.  For the ACT scores announcement, for instance, this is an annual release, and the education media know to anticipate it.  So there is little risk.  For others, August is a double-edged sword.  While readership may be down from the norm, the chances of coverage are dramatically increased.  If we look to the ed reform calendar for September and October, there are already dozens of report releases, conferences, forums, and events.  And that doesn’t even include the communications push from both sides on NCLB reform.

So what’s an educause supposed to do?

Cast a wide net.  Many believe the game is won with an article in Education Week.  Yes, it is an important win, but it isn’t an all-defining act.  We don’t truly understand and appreciate an issue until we have heard it four or five or seven times.  Repetition is key.  We need to hear the same story from different sources and through different channels.  Supplement the EdWeek piece with some regional daily news coverage, postings on multiple websites, emails to your database, and outreach to the blogsphere.  Do it over the course of  few weeks.  Multiple touches, multiple stories, multiplying success.

We’re already starting to see that with NSBA’s study, and ACT has become a master at segmenting its story for national, regional, and statewide significance.  In a field that is so big on modeling, hopefully others can pick up some pointers from those orgs that successfully release their reports or promote their events.

August doesn’t have to be a graveyard for well-intentioned education stories.  But to avoid the tombstone, one needs to work harder and work smarter.  A good story, a broad net, and an integrated outreach strategy can make the difference between a one-hit-wonder and a Hall of Famer.     

“We Want NCLB” Cont.

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Spellings

We’ve talked about the ETS study, the Scripps Howard study, and the PDK study on public opinion of NCLB.  A mixed bag, yes.  Eduflack’s underlying takeaway remains that the more the general public knows about NCLB, the more supportive they are of the law.  (http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/06/25/getting-to-know-you-.aspx)

Today, we have a new study to underscore that notion.  Education Next magazine has released new findings from an NCLB study led by Harvard University’s JFK School and conducted by researchers at Harvard, University of Chicago, and Brown University.  http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/8806742.html  Special thanks to Alexander Russo and This Week in Education for throwing the spotlight on the study.

What does it tell us?  Sure, it demonstrates that the American people generally support NCLB and want to see it reauthorized, despite what some in the vocal minority may say.  Interestingly, folks seem to be more supportive of NCLB than they are of their own local schools.  This is a far cry from data in the early 1990s, where people said the public schools were in disarray, but their own local schools were doing great.

While that’s all well and good, the study’s most interesting data comes in the area of accountability.  If you read the popular media, you would think there was an Evita-like uprising against testing and the quantitative assessment of student achievement.  It is thought that most Americans are out there bemoaning teaching to the test, worried that we’re overtesting our kids, and raising their collective blood pressures about “high stakes” testing.

In reality, we want more accountability, more data, and national standards.  Quoting Education Next’s announcement:


  • Nearly three-quarters of survey respondents support having a single national proficiency standard in public education rather than letting every state set its own proficiency standards.
  • 81 percent support requiring students in certain grades to pass an exam before they proceed to the next grade; 85 percent support requiring students to pass an exam before graduating from high school.
  • 60 percent support the practice of publishing the average test performance of each school’s students.
Wow.  Imagine that.  We want national standards.  We want accountability.  We want to know how our schools and our students are performing.  It’s almost like the public expects that we are spending our education dollars effectively and are making sure that our schools are doing what works.  What a novel concept.

Kudos to Education Next and the Hoover Institution for injecting this needed public opinion data into the debate.  It only further supports what Eduflack has been writing until he is blue in the knuckles.  We all share the goals and mission of NCLB.  We want to see our students succeed, we want to measure that success, and we want to replicate those successes where schools and students are struggling.  And we want to ensure that our child can compete again one from a neighboring city or from one across the country. 

Hopefully, the U.S. Department of Education is listening to what the public wants.  We all can hear the footsteps of NCLB reauthorization approaching.  That plodding horse has to choose between two paths — weakening the law or strengthening it.  Looking at EdNext’s research, along with ETS, we should choose the latter without hesitation.  It’s what works.  It’s what is best for the future of our nation.  And it’s what the public (those footing the bill) want.

So let me pose a question from the NCLB 1.0 exit exam:

NCLB is up for reauthorization.  ED wants it reauthorized.  The American public supports reauthorization.  Data demonstrates that NCLB is working, and the more information about NCLB that is distributed, the more support the law gains (outside of Congress).  Should Secretary Spellings and ED:

A. Launch an aggressive marketing/PR campaign highlighting the goals of NCLB, its successes to date, and specific improvements focused on greater accountability and student success
B. Get defensive about NCLB attacks, trying to answer criticisms one by one, being sure to repeat the attack before they say it isn’t true
C. Do nothing, hoping all the controversies disappear and are replaced by lollipops and rainbows

Anyone who has been in the political trenches knows there is only one right answer to this question.  If you want an “A” for reauthorization efforts, you need to strongly answer A on the ole bubble sheet.  If we truly want to strengthen the law and provide all students an opportunity for success, the time has come, oh ED of mine, to start selling NCLB.

We’ve got a great product with strong customer support and strong proof it lives up to its claims.  Lay those puzzle pieces together, and the PR strategy almost writes itself. 

Deskilling Our Students?

Eduflack early college, higher ed, Marketing, NCLB, PR, Students

Are our high schools effectively preparing our students for life beyond the schoolhouse doors?  It is a question that groups like National Governors Association, Jobs for the Future, Alliance for Excellent Education, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others have lent their policy heft to.  And it is an issue where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has lent the heft of its coffers to.  In a few short years, high school improvement has become THE ed reform issue.

This week, Eduflack was down at the Education Industry Association conference, hearing tales of SES, charters, technology, and entrepreneurship.  There was one concept, though, that has stuck deep into the troubled mind of Eduflack.  Deskilling.

When we look at high schools, we recognize that most of our secondary schools are still built on an educational model that is now vastly out of date.  That’s why we are trying to restore rigor and relevance to the schools, demonstrating that high school is a necessary step to both college and career.

But how do we do it?  In districts throughout the nation, we still have high school students sitting in row after row of desks, reading from hard-cover textbooks, taking mimeographed quizzes, and generally using the learning tools and approaches that their parents once used.  Simply, we’re teaching 21st century students with 19th century approaches.

These students, of course, are coming to class equipped in a way their parents never envisioned.  Strong computer skills.  Communication skills derived from websites like MySpace and the like.  Organizational skills coming from sites like MeetUp.  Multimedia learning abilities from iPods and YouTube.  Instant messaging.  Blogs.  Students are equipped with an unending list of skills and abilities that most of our public schools still don’t have a handle on.  They utilize multiple ways of learning, without even knowing they are being taught.

And how do we approach such students, once they pass through the high school entryway?  Simply, we deskill them.  Instead of building on these abilities and providing instruction and learning opportunities through the mediums and vehicles that students know (and that future employers will benefit from) we are asking many of our students to leave their knowledgebase at the door, and pick up the textbook, sit at their one-piece desk, and be educated the way their forefathers were.

That’s a cryin’ shame.  If we look under the hood of high school reform, we’re seeing successes in early colleges, redesigned classrooms, one-to-one computing, and distance education.  We’re succeeding where our classrooms are evolving and meeting the learning, socialization, and communication skills of the students we’re serving.  If we expect more from our students, we need to work with them, and not against them.  We need to enhance their skills, not discourage them.  We need to equip them, not deskill them.

If we want a skilled workforce, we can’t send the message that such skills have no place in a traditional classroom.  In our multimedia world, we need a multimedia education.  Don’t know what that means?  Try asking one of the kids in your class.  I’m sure they’ll be happy to teach, if we’re ready to learn.  

Putting Our Time Where Our Priorities Are

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

Prioritization.  In today’s educational day and age, it’s all about prioritization.  We prioritize funding.  We prioritize teacher hiring.  We prioritize curriculum adoption.  We prioritize how we assess our students and how we measure our classrooms.  We decide what is most important to us, and make that the focus of our efforts. 

Without question, as a nation, we’ve prioritized the need to prepare all students for the rigors of both school and career.  That is the goal of public education in 2007.  We want rigorous instruction.  We want students graduating from high school.  We want students seeking (and demonstrating proficiency for) postsecondary education.  And we want students to qualify for well-paying jobs (while keeping such jobs in the United States).

How do we get there?  How do we meet such high expectations?  For the past five years, we’ve marketed school improvement on our success in both reading and math.  These skills are non-negotiable building blocks to academic and life success.  And they are needed in order to succeed in science, social studies, and other subjects beyond the elementary school years.  That’s why NCLB is focused on reading and math (with science soon turning the duo into a trio).  Put simply, reading and math skills are now king in terms of school improvement.

Earlier this week, CEP released its report on how elementary schools are spending their instructional time.  The findings?  Our schools are spending more time on math and reading since the passage of NCLB.  Obviously, then, other subjects are finding their time cut.

CEP’s findings has sent a ripple through the education community.  But why?  Don’t we expect our actions to match our rhetoric?  If we are prioritizing math and reading in elementary school, if we are assessing our schools based on student reading and math ability, isn’t that where we should focus our attention?

Of course it is.  We need to put our instructional time where our instructional priorities lie.  Instead of grousing about lost minutes in art or music or phys-ed instruction, shouldn’t we be asking if those 37 additional math/reading instructional minutes have resulted in measurable student improvement?  After all, isn’t that our goal?   

Finding Models of Reform Excellence

Eduflack Bloomberg, Fenty, Marketing, NCLB, PR

If we’ve learned anything from the education investments of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it is that one of the keys to effective education reform is replicability.  We all seek to improve our schools.  But when it comes to enacting reform, we want some guarantees.  We’d like to know its worked somewhere.  It makes it easier to sell the reform to key constituencies, and it makes it easier to anticipate the improvement you seek.  We want to learn from those who have succeeded.  That’s how we replicate.

Yesterday, we heard Mayor Bloomberg at the National Urban League calling on other cities to emulate the education reforms enacted in New York City.  Under the tenure of Gotham’s Mayor and Chancellor Klein, NYC has a lot to be proud of.  Reform has generated results.  And the kids in NYC’s public schools are benefiting, at least according to the latest round of student assessments.

Bloomberg deserves credit for marketing NYC’s education reforms as the model to emulate.  With most reforms, educators are quick to say that results take time, we need to be patient, and we don’t fully know the extend or the long-term implications.  We caveat the reforms, lower expectations, and generally de-emphasize the results out of fear that the improvement won’t hold.  But not Bloomberg.  His bold declaration was the sort we expect from a business mogul or a seasoned politician.  Bloomberg must be both.  He’s now got the NUL thinking, and he already has mayors like DC Mayor Fenty signing up to adopt the Bloomberg education model.

For those who aren’t willing to invest in the Bloomberg model, the Baltimore Sun offers a second education reform marketing effort, and an unlikely one at that — The Baltimore Schools.  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/k12/bal-te.md.scores22jul22%2C0%2C546385.story

IDing how schools of all shapes, sizes, and such can succeed, Baltimore this week is offering up its formula for success.  The components are simple.  Experienced, veteran teachers.  Extra-curricular activities.  Involved parents.  And a focus on student achievement.  Sounds good to me.  Now we just need to move such lessons beyond the walls of George Washington Elementary.

 

Bloomberg and Baltimore provide us two sides to the same coin.  And they tell us a clear story.  There’s no one-size-fits-all solution to education reform.  But there are lessons to be learned in all corners of public education.  Cobble together enough of those lessons, and you may just have a comprehensive education reform model that will make a meaningful, long-term difference when it comes to student achievement.

As we are learning these lessons, though, we need to look for opportunities to teach.  Those schools that have reformed and improved.  Those who have implemented NCLB and succeeded.  Those who have IDed a problem and taken a bold step to solve it.  Now is the time for you to step forward.  Now is the time to promote your reforms and talk up your improvements.  The future of our schools depends on it.